Patent litigation costs big bucks. Not $7 billion big (the price Oracle paid for Sun Microsystems and the Java intellectual property it used to sue Google), but it's common for a high-profile trial to cost millions of dollars for each side.

That's one reason so many are settled before they reach a jury. But Oracle v. Google was an exception, and it is looking increasingly likely that Oracle has wasted a huge investment by pursuing its allegation that Android violates Java patents and copyrights to the bitter end. At one time Oracle was seeking billions of dollars in damages. With today's jury ruling that Google did not infringe Java patents, Oracle may get nothing, or close to it.

It's not over. There will be appeals, and a question about whether Java APIs can be copyrighted is still awaiting a ruling from the judge presiding over the case. But for now, it looks like Oracle may have spent millions of dollars to get nothing in return.

"I would assume this is a several million dollar trial," Penn Law Professor R. Polk Wagner told Ars today. "Six weeks is a long trial, plus the case was fairly complex. I would not be surprised if [Oracle's costs were] more than $10 million once you include the enormous amount of prep work."

IP and technology lawyer Denise Howell tells Ars that Oracle's costs could actually be "tens of millions in legal fees." Of course, Google has its own legal fees, but it's a lot easier to stomach when you're on the winning side. As is typical, Google also asked the court to force Oracle to cover Google's litigation costs, but winning such a reimbursement is difficult.

Oracle went big, hiring famous lawyer David Boies, who represented the Justice Department in the United States v. Microsoft and Al Gore in Bush v. Gore. Boies still has work to do—Wagner is quick to note that this jury verdict is far from a final word.

Patent cases are often appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, so "it is not wise to think of this as a 'final' statement on the patent issues (or, indeed, the copyright issues)," Wagner said. "It's better thought of as major development, but not the final word."

A finding of infringement could have ultimately given Oracle reason to go after Android hardware vendors with similar allegations. Even with today's loss, however, it's hard to predict what Oracle might do on that front, Wagner said.

"It's unclear what Oracle's strategy was (or is), but potentially they could have sought fees or damages from anyone selling Android phones," Wagner said. "I'm hesitant to say it will have much effect. Smartphones have so many components—software and hardware—so the fact that these patents weren't found to be infringed has very little to do, I think, with the other litigation that's going on."

Theoretically, a settlement between Google and Oracle could have indemnified Google's hardware partners from Java-related litigation. Obviously, though, the two companies were much too far apart to settle the case without going to trial.

What's next? Oracle won a partial victory in the first phase of Oracle v. Google, which focused on copyright issues. Judge William Alsup told Oracle and Google lawyers that he will rule next week on whether APIs can be copyrighted. Shortly after today's patent verdict, Oracle and Google filed new briefs providing information on the interfaces, exceptions, and interoperability issues related to the API question. The interoperability questions center on the ability of Java applications to run on Android, and whether the 37 API packages that Oracle says Google copies promoted interoperability.

Howell said it "will be a close call on the copyrightability issue," and that we could still be years away from an ultimate conclusion even if Alsup rules against Oracle on API copyrights. "Oracle could definitely still get something out of this," Howell said.

Oracle will keep fighting, and today released a statement saying: "Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility."

However, the jury in the case has already been dismissed, and the damages phase of the trial has been canceled. Alsup has said that because the jury couldn't reach a verdict on whether Google had a valid "fair use" defense in using the APIs, that there would be no immediate financial liability even if it turns out APIs can be copyrighted. If Alsup finds that APIs can be copyrighted, Oracle could get a retrial over whether Google is guilty of violating its copyright, seeking damages from a different jury, as our reporter Joe Mullin wrote last week. A ruling that APIs can be copyrighted could also lead to future software copyright cases unrelated to this one, giving intellectual property owners greater standing to sue over APIs.

We'll find out more soon, but for now this case is looking like a huge win for Google and a waste of time and money for Oracle.

33 Reader Comments

We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywheredebug everywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.

We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.

We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.

Java EE, J2ME, J2SE

Yes, write once my...

I remember many many many moons ago, I was writing a prototype on both Linux and Windows using Java. I used a Sun JVM on both machines, the same version....

After a bunch of debugging, I found that with the Sun Windows JVM, mouse clicks on a component went to the inner-most component of a container. However, on the Linux Sun JVM, mouse clicks went to the outer-most container only. That meant that even tho I had the same version of the Sun JVM on two platforms, they behaved quite differently, making it so that write once run everywhere, became write once *debug* everywhere....

I'm unfamiliar with how legal costs are dealt with in civil cases in the US. Are Google and Oracle now each separately responsible for their respective legal bills? Under what circumstances would Oracle be on the hook for the costs of Google's defense? And are there fees associated with the use of the court system imposed on plaintiffs who do not prevail?

What prevents the forking of Java like OpenOffice was forked? Does copyright of the implementation of the APIs remain an issue in that case?

Can the forked project be called ForkE (Fork Ellison)?

I think the implementations are protected by patent instead. And the jury already found Google did not violate patent. Google basically forked Ellison pretty good. I mean... they made their own implementation of Java (including the APIs and underlying support) - Dalvik. Which was the focus of the 2nd phase of this trial.

I'm unfamiliar with how legal costs are dealt with in civil cases in the US. Are Google and Oracle now each separately responsible for their respective legal bills? Under what circumstances would Oracle be on the hook for the costs of Google's defense? And are there fees associated with the use of the court system imposed on plaintiffs who do not prevail?

My understanding (IANAL) is that each side pays their own costs normally. Plaintiffs pay the court costs as part of filing the case (one reason mass P2P lawsuits combine a gazillion cases into one) from the start. I think you have to ask for your court costs specifically as part of the suit. But in any case, the defendant doesn't get court costs when they win, unless they can prove the lawsuit was frivolous and they win pretty clearly. This case didn't sound one-sided enough for that (though it would be nice to hammer Oracle some more. )

Boies ignored two hundred years of precedent (where states have in the past not known they're electoral college results until just before sending their delegation, if even then) in arguing the case for the Gore v Bush case and lost as a result. Since he ignored that, he took it as given that the federal gov't had a right to interfere in Florida's recount.

And the Microsoft case for the DOJ didn't go well either...

But that's a rehash of old annoyances.

Did Boies point out to the jury that since everything to a computer program is a number, arguing about the semantics of numerical vs symbolic representation was stupid? I recall reading that he argued they were the same, but not that he mentioned why.

What prevents the forking of Java like OpenOffice was forked? Does copyright of the implementation of the APIs remain an issue in that case?

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that Oracle licences the official compatibility tests for Java, and that you can't distribute a "Java" implementation without passing those tests - it's why Apache pulled out of the Java governing board. IBM and some others have their own Java implementations, but if you tried to make a properly open Java implementation, you'd likely get sued like Google has.

Boies ignored two hundred years of precedent (where states have in the past not known they're electoral college results until just before sending their delegation, if even then) in arguing the case for the Gore v Bush case and lost as a result. Since he ignored that, he took it as given that the federal gov't had a right to interfere in Florida's recount.

And the Microsoft case for the DOJ didn't go well either...

In what way?

I seem to remember the DOJ case going very well for them. They won it and got a big judgement for breaking up MS.

The appeal ended up weakening that but upheld the verdict. That was to do with the original judge rather than the DOJ lawyers though.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that Oracle licences the official compatibility tests for Java, and that you can't distribute a "Java" implementation without passing those tests - it's why Apache pulled out of the Java governing board. IBM and some others have their own Java implementations, but if you tried to make a properly open Java implementation, you'd likely get sued like Google has.

I guess the longer Oracle keep this fiasco rumbling on, the more money it'll cost Google to continue defend themselves, so that's a "win" for Oracle...

I agree. if you count the court fees + acquisition 200 patents and patents pending from IBM + acquisition of Motorola Mobility. but then , it look like google rather give the money to others than to oracle

What prevents the forking of Java like OpenOffice was forked? Does copyright of the implementation of the APIs remain an issue in that case?

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that Oracle licences the official compatibility tests for Java, and that you can't distribute a "Java" implementation without passing those tests - it's why Apache pulled out of the Java governing board. IBM and some others have their own Java implementations, but if you tried to make a properly open Java implementation, you'd likely get sued like Google has.

As far as I know, historically the only reason you had to pass the compatibility tests was to actually say you were Java. Otherwise you could do whatever you wanted. Red Hat has JBoss. Others use other names like Harmony. I was under the impression that Harmony folded up because Sun/Oracle kept refusing to let them have the compatibility tests, but I may be wrong on that point.

One thing is very clear though. Java is to be avoided. If you do anything with Java that Oracle wants a piece of, they will sue you, grounds or not. They are not to be trusted. I thinks its time to move to a python based mobile platform.

OK that is a bit much but not since the SCO debacle have I been so pissed off at a company.

Yeah, I agree, we should avoid Java like the plague. I am glad Google is winning this and I hope they eventually decide to remove the Java element from Android if that is doable over a longer period of time.

I'm unfamiliar with how legal costs are dealt with in civil cases in the US. Are Google and Oracle now each separately responsible for their respective legal bills? Under what circumstances would Oracle be on the hook for the costs of Google's defense? And are there fees associated with the use of the court system imposed on plaintiffs who do not prevail?

My understanding (IANAL) is that each side pays their own costs normally. Plaintiffs pay the court costs as part of filing the case (one reason mass P2P lawsuits combine a gazillion cases into one) from the start. I think you have to ask for your court costs specifically as part of the suit. But in any case, the defendant doesn't get court costs when they win, unless they can prove the lawsuit was frivolous and they win pretty clearly. This case didn't sound one-sided enough for that (though it would be nice to hammer Oracle some more. )

In most cases, both parties have to bear their own legal costs. Though, a federal judge just threw out a case and ordered a patent troll, Kelora, to pay the legal fees of the e-tailers that it sued over having in-site search functionality on their websites. If more judges acted this way, it could slow down the worst trolls since the trolls could lose millions filing suits on broadly interpreted patents.

OK that is a bit much but not since the SCO debacle have I been so pissed off at a company.

Yeah, I agree, we should avoid Java like the plague. I am glad Google is winning this and I hope they eventually decide to remove the Java element from Android if that is doable over a longer period of time.

Monakh, I feel your pain. I recently found myself googling "Oracle destroys Sun legacy" just to see how many people feel the same way I do.

Sun built great relationships with the open source community through such products as Java, OpenOffice, MySQL, OpenSolaris and VirtualBox. Now Oracle is alienating a large portion of that very community by forcing forks of almost all of these products.

If they are not careful Oracle may find their name next to that of SCO in a footnote in the annals of IT history as enterprises that failed due to their excessive pursuit of litigation derived income.

One thing is very clear though. Java is to be avoided. If you do anything with Java that Oracle wants a piece of, they will sue you, grounds or not. They are not to be trusted. I thinks its time to move to a python based mobile platform.

+1 on that one

Java clearly has too great a legal risk to be a viable development language. In any event, for the majority of Java uses today, there are alternatives that I would argue are superior.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Oracle will attempt to invest in Java development nor attempt to improve the community (they seem determined to do the opposite). Sun was imperfect, but a lot better than this. It's best for the world if Java just stagnates and declines at this point. Oracle has no interest in any of that, except it seems to aggressively monetize what they can from Sun.

Doesn't the GPL indemnify licensees from liability from violating the author's patents? What's stopping the community from forking Java just like they did to OpenOffice? Just take the language, change the name, and ditch Oracle. That's looking like a better idea all the time.

Doesn't the GPL indemnify licensees from liability from violating the author's patents? What's stopping the community from forking Java just like they did to OpenOffice? Just take the language, change the name, and ditch Oracle. That's looking like a better idea all the time.

I would say maybe, but then Oracle sued Google anyway. You don't really need to have much ground to take someone to civil court, costing them millions of dollars regardless of winning or losing

Now we need a positive ruling for mankind on the API question... which would be that they are NOT copyrightable, so that software can continue to be reverse engineered, and we'll be good to go. I can't tell you how much I hate it when courts poke their noses into technological innovation. You never know how it'll go. The current patent fiasco is a perfect example.

If Ellison had time to reread history, he would learn that even though he personally enjoys strife, constant tactical engagement of the enemy is bad strategy. As the Thebans learned vs Sparta, and the Syracusians learned versus Athens few years of engagement is sufficient to bring an opposing army up to speed.

Once battle hardened, an opposing force (of lawyers) can bleed you dry. Moreover, pipsqueeks will fight you tooth and nail once your aura of invincibility is seen as bragadocio.

I would say maybe, but then Oracle sued Google anyway. You don't really need to have much ground to take someone to civil court, costing them millions of dollars regardless of winning or losing

But Google didn't rely on the GPL, they released their code under Apache. That's what gave Oracle some (albeit very questionable) ground to sue them. Now that the Java code is released under the GPL, a GPL'ed fork of Java with a different name should be totally immune to any kind of lawsuit from Oracle.

"Java's core write once run anywhere principle" was broken before Microsoft was sued over their JVM implimentation. As posted by several Java developers before my post it is a write once, debug everywhere. How about a class action lawsuit for false advertising!

I would say maybe, but then Oracle sued Google anyway. You don't really need to have much ground to take someone to civil court, costing them millions of dollars regardless of winning or losing

But Google didn't rely on the GPL, they released their code under Apache. That's what gave Oracle some (albeit very questionable) ground to sue them. Now that the Java code is released under the GPL, a GPL'ed fork of Java with a different name should be totally immune to any kind of lawsuit from Oracle.